A federal judge signed off on arguably the biggest change in the history of college sports Friday, clearing the way for schools to begin paying their athletes millions as soon as next month as the multibillion-dollar industry shreds the last vestiges of the amateur model that defined it for more than a century.

Nearly five years after Arizona State swimmer Grant House sued the NCAA and its five biggest conferences to lift restrictions on revenue sharing, U.S. Judge Claudia Wilken approved the final proposal that had been hung up on roster limits, just one of many changes ahead amid concerns that thousands of walk-on athletes will lose their chance to play college sports.

The sweeping terms of the so-called House settlement include approval for each school to share up to $20.5 million with athletes over the next year and $2.7 billion that will be paid over the next decade to thousands of former players who were barred from that revenue for years.

Syracuse University has said it intends to distribute the full $20.5 million spending cap on its athletes, though it has declined to say how that money will be distributed across football, men’s and women’s basketball and the other sports.

Le Moyne, which recently moved its sports programs to compete in Division I, has not said how much it will pay its players. Division I schools can choose to “opt in” to revenue sharing by June 15.

All Division I athletes will be subject to the new rules around third-party pay regardless of whether their school opts in to revenue sharing.

One of the lead plaintiff attorneys, Steve Berman, called Friday’s news “a fantastic win for hundreds of thousands of college athletes.”

The agreement brings a seismic shift to hundreds of schools that were forced to reckon with the reality that their players are the ones producing the billions in TV and other revenue, mostly through football and basketball, that keep this machine humming.

The scope of the changes — some have already begun — is difficult to overstate. The professionalization of college athletics will be seen in the high-stakes and expensive recruitment of stars on their way to the NFL and NBA, and they will be felt by athletes whose schools have decided to pare their programs. The agreement will resonate in nearly every one of the NCAA’s 1,100 member schools boasting nearly 500,000 athletes.

NCAA President Charlie Baker said the deal “opens a pathway to begin stabilizing college sports.”

The road to a settlement

Wilken’s ruling comes 11 years after she dealt the first significant blow to the NCAA ideal of amateurism. Then, she ruled in favor of former UCLA basketball player Ed O’Bannon and others seeking a way to earn money from the use of their name, image and likeness (NIL) — a term that is now as common in college sports as “March Madness” or “Roll Tide.”

It was just four years ago that the NCAA cleared the way for NIL money to start flowing, but the changes coming are even bigger.

Wilken granted preliminary approval to the settlement last October. That sent colleges scurrying to determine not only how they were going to afford the payments, but how to regulate an industry that also allows players to cut deals with third parties so long as they are deemed compliant by a newly formed enforcement group that will be run by auditors at Deloitte.

The agreement takes a big chunk of oversight away from the NCAA and puts it in the hands of the four biggest conferences. The ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC hold most of the power and decision-making heft, especially when it comes to the College Football Playoff, which is the most significant financial driver in the industry and is not under the NCAA umbrella like the March Madness tournaments are.

Roster limits held things up

The deal looked ready to go, but Wilken put a halt to it this spring after listening to a number of players who had lost their spots because of newly imposed roster limits being placed on teams.

The limits were part of a trade-off that allowed the schools to offer scholarships to everyone on the roster, instead of only a fraction, as has been the case for decades. Schools started cutting walk-ons in anticipation of the deal being approved.

Wilken asked for a solution and, after weeks, the parties decided to let anyone cut from a roster — now termed a “Designated Student-Athlete” — return to their old school or play for a new one without counting against the new limit.

Wilken ultimately agreed, going point-by-point through the objectors’ arguments to explain why they didn’t hold up. The main point pushed by the parties was that those roster spots were never guaranteed in the first place.

“The modifications provide Designated Student-Athletes with what they had prior to the roster limits provisions being implemented, which was the opportunity to be on a roster at the discretion of a Division I school,” Wilken wrote.

Her decision, however, took nearly a month to write, leaving the schools and conferences in limbo — unsure if the plans they’d been making for months, really years, would go into play.

“It remains to be seen how this will impact the future of inter-collegiate athletics — but as we continue to evolve, Carolina remains committed to providing outstanding experiences and broad-based programming to student-athletes,” North Carolina athletic director Bubba Cunningham said.

Winners and losers

The list of winners and losers is long and, in some cases, hard to tease out.

A rough guide of winners would include football and basketball stars at the biggest schools, which will devote much of their bankroll to signing and retaining them. For instance, Michigan quarterback Bryce Underwood’s NIL deal is reportedly worth between $10.5 million and $12 million.

Losers, despite Wilken’s ruling, figure to be at least some of the walk-ons and partial scholarship athletes whose spots are gone.

Also in limbo are the Olympic sports many of those athletes play and that serve as the main pipeline for a U.S. team that has won the most medals at every Olympics since the downfall of the Soviet Union.

All this is a price worth paying, according to the attorneys who crafted the settlement and argue they delivered exactly what they were asked for: an attempt to put more money in the pockets of the players whose sweat and toil keep people watching from the start of football season through March Madness and the College World Series in June.

What the settlement does not solve is the threat of further litigation.

Though this deal brings some uniformity to the rules, states still have separate laws regarding how NIL can be doled out, which could lead to legal challenges. Baker has been consistent in pushing for federal legislation that would put college sports under one rulebook and, if he has his way, provide some form of antitrust protection to prevent the new model from being disrupted again.

Jun. 6—JAMESTOWN — One Blue Jay was recognized as one of the best in the state of North Dakota.

Avery Graves, a junior for the Jamestown High School softball team, was named to the 2025 Class A Softball All-State Team on Friday.

Advertisement

Graves, the starting first baseman, posted a batting average of .449 and a slugging percentage of .692 this season. The senior produced 48 hits — 32 singles, 11 doubles and five home runs. The junior recorded 48 RBIs.

2025 Class A Softball All-State Team

Avery Graves, Jamestown

Halle Baker, Minot

Madison Aadland, West Fargo Sheyenne

Jocelyn Berg, Grand Forks Red River

Riley Ingemansen, Legacy

Rylee Irgens, Williston

Mya Jones, Bismarck High

Katelyn Kackman, West Fargo

Olivia Kalbus, Fargo North

Aubrey King, Fargo North

Mackenna Medina, Dickinson

Jada Purdy, Fargo North

Sophia Rerick, Fargo Davies

Cadey Shipman, Minot North

Advertisement

Gabi Sobolik, Dickinson

Brooklyn Soderberg, Grand Forks Red River

Presley Tveter, West Fargo Sheyenne

Kaebry Weekes, Mandan

Ali Wilcox, Williston

NDHSCA POWERade Outstanding Senior Athlete — Aubrey King, Fargo North

NDHSCA SUBWAY Coach of the Year — Jesse Stundal, Williston

College sports’ power conferences — Big Ten, SEC, ACC and Big 12 — have hired a high-profile investigator in professional sports to lead their new governing body that will oversee revenue sharing and NIL contracts.

MLB executive Bryan Seeley has been hired after a months-long search for a CEO to lead the new College Sports Commission, a spokesperson for the power conferences told CBS Sports on Friday. Seeley emerged as the leader in May as the four commissioners, alongside a group of athletic directors, began finalizing plans for implementation of the long-awaited House v. NCAA settlement, which was approved on Friday.

All four power conference commisioners released a joint statement commending Seeley’s hiring.

“Bryan brings unwavering integrity and a wealth of relevant experience to his new role leading the College Sports Commission and working to ensure a smooth implementation of this new system,” the statement read. “We’re grateful to have an individual with his credentials and expertise at the helm, and we look forward to his leadership as we transition into this new era of college sports.”

Seeley has spent the last decade working for MLB, where he is currently the executive vice president of legal and operations. He was hired in September 2014 to lead MLB’s investigation department after a career as a federal prosecutor and an assistant U.S. Attorney for the Department of Justice’s public corruption section.

“Bryan is an exceptional choice to lead the College Sports Commission,” Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred said. “During his time at MLB, Bryan demonstrated unparalleled integrity, a commitment to fairness, and the ability to navigate complex challenges with precision and care. I have no doubt he will bring the same level of excellence to the College Sports Commission. College sports will greatly benefit from Bryan’s expertise and vision.”

House v. NCAA settlement fundamentally alters college athletics, but don’t expect it to bring stability

Chris Hummer

He had an extensive career as an investigator for MLB, where he led baseball’s investigation into sign stealing, which led to penalties for the Houston Astros and Boston Red Sox. He recently penned a letter to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission lobbying for more integrity for exchange-based platforms. 

Seeley will report directly to the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC’s commissioners in his new role. Seeley worked alongside Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti when Petitti led the MLB Network in the late 2010s. Petitti was crucial in the targeting of Seeley as the CSC’s new CEO, sources told CBS Sports.

On Friday, Judge Claudia Wilken finally approved the $2.8 billion settlement after weeks of waiting from plaintiffs and the defendants in the landmark antitrust case. The CSC will be overseen by the power conferences and mostly operate outside the NCAA’s rules-enforcement umbrella.

The CSC will police and enforce NIL and revenue-sharing rules tied to the terms of the House settlement. In essence, the CSC is set to become a smaller, more agile version of the NCAA’s enforcement arm. The CEO will have final say on settlement-related items and enforcement of fair market value NIL deals of greater than $600, according to sources. 

Scrutinized NIL deals would be subject to arbitration, and if the third party sides with the CSC’s findings, players and universities would face penalties — the severity of which is not yet entirely known. The new CEO is expected to have considerable latitude to penalize as they see fit, according to those familiar with the situation, and won’t be boxed into a strict penalty structure that must be followed. 

An athlete who accepts a deal flagged by a Deloitte-administered clearinghouse called “NIL Go” as “pay for play” and does not meet a fair market value range would be ruled ineligible. The clearinghouse will give a range — say $75,000-$85,0000 — on what a deal should be worth based on market data and will flag a deal that fits the criteria but is for more than that amount. While the NCAA’s investigations typically take months to years, the CSC is expected to conduct and close investigations in a considerably more timely manner. The hope is that the process will be more transparent, too, and give schools more opportunity to have a say in it. 

Meanwhile, the membership agreement for the CSC has prompted questions about its legality in a system that has been under attack in the court system for years, from the O’Bannon case to Alston to House, which was filed in 2020 and helped lead to the implementation of NIL regulations from the NCAA in 2021. Those regulations, however, have proven toothless in the face of legal challenges and legislation in more than 30 states. The question that arises now anytime new rules are introduced: Is this legally enforceable?

The thinking among college leaders is the CSC will have some legal protection because of the House settlement. Current players who opt into the settlement are bound to the terms, which include the formation of the CSC as an enforcement entity. That entity, as explained in the settlement terms, is required to install a binding arbitration process, which players are required to follow as members of the settlement. Essentially, the athletes cannot sue over a deal flagged as not meeting fair market value. 

“Unless the new state laws specifically create a new legal claim that gives them right to sue, which I don’t think they do, the players’ legal claims would still be wiped out by the settlement,” said Sam Ehrlich, a sports law professor at Boise State. “And even if the rules do allow players to sue, there’s a strong argument that the settlement also blocks similar claims under state law since it’s a similar field of law.”

The long-awaited House v. NCAA settlement is finally a reality, paving the way for universities to pay their athletes directly starting on July 1.

There is a lot to consider in what could be the most consequential day in college sports history. How are schools going to actually pay their athletes? Who will be policing this new revenue share world? Will much-needed stability actually come from a House settlement some have hyped as a magic bullet?

Within it all, there are some clear winners and losers who will have their realities dramatically changed in this new post-House world. 

Winner: Athletes in the ‘revenue’ sports

It won’t be exclusively football and men’s basketball athletes who will benefit from the House settlement, but they are certainly the biggest benefactors. Those two sports have propped up athletic departments for years, generating the bulk of the revenue and seeing none of the profits. Now schools will have to pay their top athletes considerable money on top of the NIL money they can make elsewhere that’s already been a major boon for many of them. 

It is stunning how far things have come in just the last decade, from fights over what are now relatively paltry cost-of-attendance stipends to a world in which football and basketball players can and do make millions. 

Loser: Renegade boosters

The early years of NIL featured unique characters like Miami booster John Ruiz who weren’t shy about being willing to spend big money to see their favorite teams win. The money has exploded in recent years from the reported $20 million Ohio State team that won the national championship last season to the $40 million roster era as Indiana’s Curt Cignetti told CBS Sports this spring. In theory, those days are over. 

Yes, there is considerable industry skepticism about how a clearinghouse called NIL Go will actually hold up to legal scrutiny and stop boosters from using NIL solely as “pay to play,” but if it does work, as the NCAA and Power Four conferences desperately hope it does, the days of spending $3 million on a defensive end for NIL will be over and eliminate an advantage schools with especially well-heeled boosters have exploited the last four years. 

One additional note here: Schools that can tap into local businesses willing to spend real NIL money will be at a big advantage if NIL is strictly policed for “fair market value” as the clearinghouse intends. If your school campus happens to be located in a lucrative metro area, even better. 

Winner: The future of collective bargaining

Now that the concept of paying athletes directly is a reality, look for attention to turn to collective bargaining/employment/unionization as the next big topic college sports has to grapple with. There are organizations including Athletes.org that have anticipated this moment and are ready to help push for collective bargaining to help solve many of the new issues that come with the House settlement’s approval. 

College athletes becoming employees is the nightmare for many college administrators but you’re seeing a warming to the idea of collective bargaining, including recently from University of Tennessee chancellor Donde Plowman and AD Danny White. A looming case, Johnson v. NCAA, may well rule that athletes should be considered employees. In the meantime, look for more and more ADs and other college sports executives to come around to the idea collective bargaining might be the best hope to enforce rules and solve tricky issues such as the current twice-annual free agency (transfer portal) that has deeply frustrated coaches like Georgia’s Kirby Smart. 

Loser: Amateurism

The “student-athlete” moniker has long been a fraud and part of the NCAA’s original sin, but its death becomes official now that universities are able to pay their athletes directly beginning July 1. This has been a long, long time coming and the result of major lawsuits — O’Bannon, Alston and House, to name three — and state laws building to this big moment. Not all fans may like it, but the days of top athletes only receiving room and board are over. 

Winner: The Big Ten and SEC

The two richest conferences that will get more money from the College Football Playoff and their TV rights deals than their fellow Power Four brethren (ACC and Big 12) are set up well for this new revenue share world. That’s not exactly a new development — those conferences were doing pretty well in the old system, too — but it should cement their reign over college athletics. And if we see future realignment, or consolidation, more likely it will be because of a deep desire to be in one of these two conferences to help pay for the ballooning expenses that come with revenue sharing. 

Winner: Big East basketball

Much of the House settlement focus will be on football but the Big East has set itself up well to benefit in college basketball. We’ve already seen Big East schools work an advantage headed into the 2025-26 season, committing more revenue share money for men’s basketball than many of their peers because they don’t have to worry about spending tens of millions on football. 

‘He played us like a drum’: Inside Kevin Willard’s turbulent Maryland departure

John Talty

In theory, at least, Big East schools could spend the entire $20.5 million salary cap on just basketball. Or, more realistically, spend $8-10 million when schools in the Big Ten and SEC are largely in the $2.5-$4 million range. There has been talk about some conferences trying to instill sport-specific spending caps, but there is real skepticism that would fly sport-wide. Assuming it doesn’t, the Big East, along as its schools can come up with the cash without the big football-driven TV rights deals, could have a significant money advantage in revenue share spending. 

Loser: Group of Five schools

For years now there have been comments about the chasm between the haves and have-nots growing larger, but that is only amplified with this settlement. It will be increasingly difficult for Group of Five schools — and even some smaller Power Four schools — to keep up with the bigger schools if they can’t fully fund the $20.5 million cap, which will only go up in the years to come. You’ll see schools partially fund in certain areas, including football and basketball, but it might be in the $2-3 million range for football when SEC and Big Ten schools will annually spend $13-16 million. There may still be some David vs. Goliath upsets in football like we saw last year (say, NIU over Notre Dame), and if the College Football Playoff format remains the same one, Group of Five school will still make the playoff, but it’ll be more challenging than ever for those schools to compete at the highest levels. 

Loser: Non-revenue sports 

Similar to the Group of Five concerns, the Olympic sports at many universities face a tough path moving forward. When athletic departments now have to share the revenue, it gets harder to pay for sports that lose money, which is everything that’s not football or basketball outside of a few exceptions at different schools. What does this look like in practicality? The doomsday option is eliminating sports altogether which some schools are already doing with sports like tennis that neither bring in revenue nor television exposure. 

The less aggressive yet still impactful measures could include reducing scholarships, refusing to give coaches raises and even cutting back on the free meals available to every athlete. Athletic directors are looking for places to cut expenses everywhere and the non-revenue sports will be a popular place to look. 

Winner: Billable hours

As the saying goes, billable hours are undefeated. That’s certainly true with the House settlement. The class action counsel, led by Jeffrey Kessler and Steve Berman, are expected to receive a whopping $484 million for their work in bringing the class-action lawsuit to completion. Considerable money has been spent by the NCAA and House defendants on attorneys, too. And, of course, there will likely be more lawsuits to come — especially from a Title IX angle — once the schools begin officially paying athletes. There’s never been a better time to be a lawyer with an interest in college sports.